Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 27, 2015.

Memoria pichilemina[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Most participants below agree that the subject of the redirect is unambiguous and mentioned in the target. As closing admin, I should remind editors that WP:COI is not a valid argument in a content discussion. It is a personal attack to discredit an argument based on the COI of the editor making it. Deryck C. 14:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to self-promotion by User:Diego Grez who created both the redirect and the web-site "Memoria pichilemina". Memoria pichilemina has no links to it and was previously an article that got deleted. —Sietecolores (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect to Pichilemu#Media. I've got nothing else to say than you guys (you know who, Sietecolores) should stop this "campaign" against my "self-promoted" websites. Oh dear, I need so much that promotion!!!! (Sure, thing). Diego Grez (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I consider that Diego Grez vote have little weight in the light he has WP:COI with Memoria pichilemina. And to you Diego Grez, there no campaign against you. There is a general campaign in Wikipedia against irrelevant content and self-promotion. By the way just discovered a very similar redirect that should be deleted along this it is Memoria Pichilemina (capital letter). –Sietecolores (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to admins to decide whether my comment has "little weight" or not. Your allegations that I have been making self-promotion are plain stupid. Regards, --Diego Grez (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well if you don't need the promotion why are you so keen to have it kept? It's not up to admins, anyway, it is up to consensus by the entire community. Si Trew (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep both capitalizations. Mentioned at target, and referenced – although the url and archiveurl (Wayback Machine) are reversed in the reference (108), and the reference is WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, but both are live. Seems an unlikely search term for an English-speaking audience, especially considering the conjugation, but harmless. Si Trew (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of Pakistani heads of state or government[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Procdural close. Redirect has been restored to an article; if deletion is sought, that should be done by a new AfD. JohnCD (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan. It obviously can't point to that and to List of Presidents of Pakistan and to Governor-General of Pakistan. No way can this redirect do what it claims to do. Bazj (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:XY. There's truly no way to know which of these subjects a reader would be searching. --BDD (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • LessSi Trew (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Strongly annoyed comment. Who suggested delete? I can't see it, cos the nominator didn't. I don't see how User:BDD can say "per XY" when User:XY did not suggest a delete. I shall remind you once more, this is redirecrts for discussion, whatever your bot says, not deletion. Si Trew (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read it again SimonTrew, it says per WP:XY not "per XY". And, for clarity, while a diambiguation page is a possibility, disambiguating a deliberately ambiguous title is pointless. I agree with BDD that Delete is the only realistic option. Bazj (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair play, there, User:Bazj: I hadn't noticed that: my mistake. I think essentially WP:TWODABS, which I'm surprised User:BDD didn't mention, but am still not quite sure on this one. . Si Trew (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that; you're absolutely right. Ivanvector, agreed? --BDD (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me, but I disagree, per WP:SNOW. The restored list is a mess, and somewhat indiscriminate since "head of state" and "head of government" are overlapping roles in the context of Pakistan. There are always two, and their terms are not the same, so we can't even really list them side-by-side. If we reorganize the list, we would have a list of heads of state and a separate list of heads of government. Except we already have both of those, so this is redundant. Punting it back to Afd is pointless bureaucracy; this should just be deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with restarting discussion. The list that's been restored is a mush of two lists, numbered as if it's one, and no easy way of differentiating the two roles (HoS v HoG) or the three positions (GG, Pres, PM) and their relationship to each other at the time. I've re-added the discussion notice which should not be removed unilaterally before the discussion is over. Bazj (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close per Chilling. This should he handled through a new AfD -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of consensus, and because we don't have one here, I agree. Send it back to AfD. Ivanvector (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go along with that. We're not discussing the redirect but the content of its target, so this is beyond our jurisdiction here. Si Trew (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bobochacha[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Deryck C. 14:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects, among all the other ones listed, could all be deleted. It doesn't really serve any purpose. It's the equivalent of listing every single hamburger variety possible and having it redirect to the page "hamburger." On top of that, none of these redirects are cited so they could just as easily be made up. Those looking for Chè varieties will undoubtedly just go directly to the article instead. I didn't list the other 67 as it seemed too tedious. 69.231.194.84 (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Is this the "other 67" redirects you're referring to? Tavix| Talk  19:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ^Yes 69.231.193.116 (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I just counted ~75 varieties of Che on that page. If redirects are mentioned and discussed on a page, they should be kept and I'm assuming they all are. Also, this isn't the right forum to deal with sourcing problems. -- Tavix (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. --BDD (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this is leaning towards keep, but want to give ourselves an extra week to allow more responses.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Charles de Gaulle (grandson)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. The consensus is that "(grandson)" is an awful way of disambiguating, but given the current state of things we're better off not deleting the redirect. Deryck C. 19:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can all see the intent here, but this is nonsense disambiguation. Every person named Charles de Gaulle is a grandson—presumably to four different people. BDD (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I did a search to see if maybe the title "grandson" is notable in this usage, but it doesn't seem to be, so it's just ambiguous disambiguation. Ivanvector (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep presumably this is a person named CdG who is the grandson of a person named CdG, from the formulation of the title. So it is working as advertised. Since this isn't the actual title of the article, the article having a precision title, there's no worries about the title of the article. We could always point it to the Charles de Gaulle dab page. "petit-fils du general" seems to be widely used. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proper analogy, I think, would be with Winston Churchill (grandson) -> Winston_Churchill (1940-2010). I believe their two grandfathers had a little disagreement occasionally. Si Trew (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - are we assuming that this is Charles de Gaulle who is a grandson, or a grandson of Charles de Gaulle? And which Charles de Gaulle (or other person) is the grandfather? Or grandson? This is confusing and improbable. Ivanvector (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The assumption is that the person is named CdG and is the grandson of a man named CdG; just like any other similar usage in regular language (ie. The Elder, The Younger, "(uncle)", "(nephew)" ) -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague and confusing. If you'd want to disambiguate it this way, it would have to be Charles de Gaulle (grandson of Charles de Gaulle) but that's still a little ridiculous. -- Tavix (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Patently Charles de Gaulle, the chap who was the sometime president of France, is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. No doubt he was somebody's grandson: in fact, his grandfather was Julien Phillipe de Gaulle on his father's side, as is said in Henri de Gaulle, his father's, article. His uncle was Charles de Gaulle (poet), but we don't have Charles de Gaulle (uncle) nor Charles de Gaulle (nephew): This is used for disambiguation, and that is all. It's not a question of having to take an absolute point in some genealogical coordinate system and work off that, but what makes WP:COMMONSENSE. Hence my analogy where Winston Churchill is the old Edwardian duffer who was not very good in the Boer war, as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and thus Winston Churchill (grandson) to disambiguate. What you are really arguing is whether CDG the Elder or Winston the Elder should be PRIMARYTOPIC. If they are, by consensus, then we have to disambiguate the others somehow, and this seems a WP:NATURAL way to do it and still be WP:CONCISE. Si Trew (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely not natural disambiguation. Parenthetical disambiguation never is—excluding, of course, topics whose names include parentheses, such as Was (Not Was). "Charles de Gaulle (grandson)" communicates "Charles de Gaulle, a grandson" like "Charles de Gaulle (poet)" communicates "Charles de Gaulle, a poet". The Charles de Gaulle is clearly the PRIMARYTOPIC, and that's part of why this is problematic—he's the most notable Charles de Gaulle who was a grandson, just as he's the most notable Charles de Gaulle who was a politician. (Charles de Gaulle (politician) doesn't exist, but if it did, it would redirect to him as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}.) That's what I mean when I say this is nonsense disambiguation. (Side note: I came across a biography disambiguated with (person) once. He wasn't a primary topic, but everything else of that name wasn't a person. Still, I think it ended up getting renamed.) --BDD (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This points to the person who is the grandson of Charles André Joseph Marie De Gaulle. I understand the technical objection raised by the nominator but I think that in practical usage this redirect takes the reader to the article they are most likely seeking. This is the original title of the article and has been around for over a decade so there is every chance of deletion breaking external links and since I don't see any real harm it should be kept per WP:RFD#HARMFUL. Just Chilling (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep - I'll change mine, given Just Chilling's comments. It's nonsense and it fails WP:NCPDAB, but it's probably not harmful and it's a very old {{R from page move}}. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Portal:Current events/April 1, 2005[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. Deryck C. 19:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects were created from page moves done by Waldir and should be deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - are these breaking anything? They certainly don't seem useful, but if they're not actively harmful to something then there isn't a pressing need to delete. On the other hand it doesn't seem like it would harm anything if they were gone, either. The stats tool seems unable to process these pages, and none have incoming links other than maintenance stuff. Ivanvector (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - for neatness' sake, I'd rather have them deleted than existing, if neither option harms the encyclopedia. However, I can't recall why I didn't seek to delete the redirects when I moved the pages. Probably there was no special reason, but I'm not 100% sure. In User:Waldir/DateMatrix#2005 I do have a note about April 2005, but it doesn't seem related... Waldir talk 00:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Certainly unnecessary, but harmless and unambiguous. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong neutral - I don't think it really matters one way or the other what we do with these, you guys. Delete per no consensus at Rfd? Ivanvector (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The default for redirects is to keep and the nominator has not offered any policy-based reason for deletion. These are the original titles of the articles and have been around for the best part of a decade so there is every chance of deletion breaking external links. Since no real harm has been identified they should be kept per WP:RFD#HARMFUL. Just Chilling (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Corporare Headquarters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was redirect boldly retargeted. (non-admin closure) oknazevad (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to corporate headquarters as a {{R from typo}}. The current target does not have a "corporare", but it does have a "corporate" , so this is a typo for "corporate headquarters", which we already have a general article on. This is clearly not a special Star Trek topic, so the Star Trek category, and Star Trek wikiproject banner should be stripped when this is retargetted. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget No idea why this this redirecting to the 2009 Star Trek film at all. Miyagawa (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold and retarget. No need for this RfD. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget is fine. I applaud the IP editor's desire for discussion and consensus, but this probably doesn't need a discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boldly go to its new target. No discussion needed. oknazevad (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done. Decided just to do it. There really is absolutely no relevance to the film to justify the old redirect; it is not in anyway a named location in the film. oknazevad (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pardew Shuffle[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Just Chilling (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Term is not mentioned in the article, and it does not appear to refer to anything in the article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Swanee Shuffle[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 5#Swanee Shuffle

Untitled Third Rihanna Album[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Just Chilling (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated redirect, this album definitely has a title. -- Tavix (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since it's no longer a plausible synonym. --Lenticel (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. No links in articles. Stats are averaging about 1 a day, including the peak of the last few days no doubt caused by this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. We should have a speedy criterion for "upcoming untitled album" redirects. Ivanvector (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_27&oldid=1138580361"